Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series.

There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40-628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials

Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self-report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990-2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty-five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full-text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty-four (48%) were double-blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty-nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty-seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4-96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well-validated QOL measures, including cachexia-specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co-primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific-based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures

Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series.

Regulatory agencies require evidence that endpoints correlate with clinical benefit before they can be used to approve drugs. Biomarkers are often considered surrogate endpoints. In cancer cachexia trials, the measurement of biomarkers features frequently. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. A comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2023) was completed. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), prospective design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a biomarker(s) as an endpoint. Biomarkers were defined as any objective measure that was assayed from a body fluid, including scoring systems based on these assays. Routine haematology and biochemistry to monitor intervention toxicity were not considered. Data extraction was performed using Covidence, and reporting followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 studies were assessed, of which 52 trials (total participants = 6522) included biomarkers as endpoints. Most studies (n = 29, 55.7%) included a variety of cancer types. Pharmacological interventions (n = 27, 51.9%) were most evaluated, followed by nutritional interventions (n = 20, 38.4%). Ninety-nine different biomarkers were used across the trials, and of these, 96 were assayed from blood. Albumin (n = 29, 55.8%) was assessed most often, followed by C-reactive protein (n = 22, 42.3%), interleukin-6 (n = 16, 30.8%) and tumour necrosis factor-α (n = 14, 26.9%), the latter being the only biomarker that was used to guide sample size calculations. Biomarkers were explicitly listed as a primary outcome in six trials. In total, 12 biomarkers (12.1% of 99) were used in six trials or more. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels both increased significantly in all three trials in which they were both used. This corresponded with a primary outcome, lean body mass, and was related to the pharmacological mechanism. Biomarkers were predominately used as exploratory rather than primary endpoints. The most commonly used biomarker, albumin, was limited by its lack of responsiveness to nutritional intervention. For a biomarker to be responsive to change, it must be related to the mechanism of action of the intervention and/or the underlying cachexia process that is modified by the intervention, as seen with IGFBP-3, IGF-1 and anamorelin. To reach regulatory approval as an endpoint, the relationship between the biomarker and clinical benefit must be clarified

From Unpleasant to Unbearable - Why And How to Implement an Upper Limit to Pain And Other Forms of Suffering in Research with Animals

The focus of this paper is the requirement that the use of live animals in experiments and in vivo assays should never be allowed if those uses involve severe suffering. This requirement was first implemented in Danish legislation, was later adopted by the European Union, and has had limited uptake in North America. Animal suffering can arise from exposure to a wide range of different external and internal events that threaten biological or social functions, while the severity of suffering may be influenced by the animals’ perceptions of their own situation and the degree of control they are able to exert. Severe suffering is more than an incremental increase in negative state(s) but involves a qualitative shift whereby the normal mechanisms to contain or keep negative states at arm’s length no longer function. The result of severe suffering will be a loss of the ability of cope. The idea of putting a cap on severe suffering may be justified from multiple ethical perspectives. In most, if not all, cases it is possible to avoid imposing severe suffering on animals during experiments without giving up the potential benefits of finding new ways to cure, prevent, or alleviate serious human diseases and generate other important knowledge. From this it follows that there is a strong ethical case to favor a regulatory ban on animal experiments involving severe suffering

The Drosophila melanogaster host model

The deleterious and sometimes fatal outcomes of bacterial infectious diseases are the net result of the interactions between the pathogen and the host, and the genetically tractable fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, has emerged as a valuable tool for modeling the pathogen–host interactions of a wide variety of bacteria. These studies have revealed that there is a remarkable conservation of bacterial pathogenesis and host defence mechanisms between higher host organisms and Drosophila. This review presents an in-depth discussion of the Drosophila immune response, the Drosophila killing model, and the use of the model to examine bacterial–host interactions. The recent introduction of the Drosophila model into the oral microbiology field is discussed, specifically the use of the model to examine Porphyromonas gingivalis–host interactions, and finally the potential uses of this powerful model system to further elucidate oral bacterial-host interactions are addressed

Prelinical Evaluation of Lyn Kinase Inhibition for the Treatment of B Cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (B-CLL).

Abstract Abstract 3447 Poster Board III-335 B-CLL is characterized by the accumulation of mature B lymphocytes incapable of undergoing apoptosis. Although several mechanisms have been implicated in the apoptotic defects in B-CLL cells, the signal transduction pathways underlying these defects remain unresolved. Lyn kinase is known to be a negative regulator of apoptosis, and is linked to chemo-resistance. Our preliminary study indicated that Lyn activity was 4- to 7-fold higher in primary B cells from six randomly-selected B-CLL patients than in normal B cells from healthy donors. Treatment of the B-CLL cells for 4 h with 10 μM concentration of a Lyn-specific inhibitor peptide targeting a unique interaction site within Lyn (Cancer Res. 2004;64:1058) resulted in 40 to 50% inhibition of Lyn kinase activity compared to negligible inhibition with control peptide. Further, treatment of the B-CLL cells for 16 to 20 h with the Lyn inhibitor peptide at 5 μM and 10 μM concentrations, decreased the cell viability by ∼25% and ∼50%, respectively, compared with no peptide or the control peptide. Fludarabine is one of the key chemotherapeutic agents for B-CLL and is known to induce cell death by apoptosis. The combined treatment with Lyn inhibitor peptide (5 μM) and fludarabine (2 μg/ml), decreased cell viability by ∼50% compared to ∼25% decrease with fludarabine or Lyn inhibitor peptide alone. In addition, the combined treatment showed ∼75% increase in caspase-3/7 activity compared to ∼25% increase with the Lyn inhibitor peptide or fludarabine alone. Because, overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins is correlated with apoptotic resistance of B-CLL cells, we examined the effect of Lyn inhibitor peptide on the changes in the expression of antiapoptotic genes, myeloid cell leukemia-1 (Mcl-1), x-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), and B-cell leukemia/lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). Treatment of B-CLL cells with 10 μM Lyn inhibitor peptide for 16 to 20 h resulted in more than 50% decreases in the expression of all the three antiapoptotic genes. Further, the Lyn inhibitor peptide markedly inhibited NF-κB activation (∼60%) and VEGF production (∼80%), both strongly implicated in the apoptotic resistance of B-CLL cells. Collectively, our results suggest that targeting Lyn kinase pathway with a clinically relevant Lyn kinase inhibitor may have a therapeutic potential for B-CLL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. </jats:sec